Question For CHRISTIAN Believers

Post Reply New Topic

Greenblue: In my experience, some sins are easier to commit than others. I don't want to harm other people. I don't want to take their stuff. HOWEVER, I don't take the very best care of myself (eat right, exercise, and so on). And those kinds of things are sins as well, though they don't necessarily appear in the 10 Commandments. We're supposed to be honest always, yet we persist in telling "little white lies."

We can't help it. It's just the way we're made. A God who demands perfection won't look at telling a lie to spare someone's feelings any differently than murder. Any imperfection is complete imperfection.

The DIFFERENCE, I think, is that some sins are deliberate and others are mistakes or old habits. Some new Christians are able to kick drug habits overnight. Others need rehab in addition to spiritual counseling. If it is a sin to continue taking a mind altering substance even after you know that it is wrong, to do so is continued sin. So why continue in sin while you're weaning yourself off of it. Well, it's just part of the process. In this situation, the ends DO justify the means, and such can also be forgiven.

Premarital sex is another sin. The remedy? Either stop the behavior or marry your partner.

Now, if I am able to scheme against a neighbor or friend and murder that person with little difficulty of guilt, then my murderous actions are a sinful of a heart which is NOT changed by God. In fact, ANY sin I do is a symptom of inner rebelliousness that ought to be erased by faith. Some things are easier than others, as I said, and some things are easier for certain people than they are for others.

Future sins are forgiven already because God knows and understands we aren't perfect creatures. But a Christian ought to be recognized as such in that the sins he commits are mistakes based on his personal shortcomings, not maliciousness of thought.

Without faith in Christ, past, present and future sins are irrelevant. Without Christ, because you are sinful by nature and your sins are not forgiven, you cannot enter into the eternal presence of God.

I’d like to preface this with a general statement. On this site I am probably considered one of the most if not the most abrasive commentator on religion. I am most surely not deeply informed on all of the literature of religion but I am acquainted with the broad general concepts sufficiently, in my opinion, to feel secure in my viewpoint.

Many of the people with whom I engage frequently become emotionally upset by my outright dismissal of many of their ideas on the basis of outright idiocy. One cannot divorce one’s self from one’s ideas and claim they have no association with their character. Ideas are how we define ourselves and to criticize an idea is to criticize the proponent of the idea.

But the point I want to get across is that every encounter I have with an idea is for my own benefit. If a religious idea is proposed I attack it with maximum vigor because it must pass certain standards before I can find it acceptable. The standards must be my own to make an idea worthwhile, whatever anybody else thinks and if people are upset by my standards that is no concern of mine.

Here is AngelRho’s 1st paragraph:

Your first question--I honestly can't say that I know for sure. PERSONALLY I think the dead DO have the same mental flexibility as in life. Now, I don't think we're given the same choice as to our ultimate destiny like we do in life. That is, we don't get to meet God and, oops, change our minds. I think the time for discovering God and building a personal relationship with God is something reserved for the living years and the main advantage death has over life is meeting our Creator vis-a-vis. Something I wonder about is the fate of unbelievers. Does the soul of an unbeliever long to be in the presence of God? Is the unrepentant soul content with eternal suffering? Can an unrepentant soul change his mind? If a condemned soul had the ability to change his heart/mind, how can we know for sure that he WOULD? I have other questions, too, along those same lines. My personal thoughts on this, subject to change, of course, are that someone who will not accept God under any circumstances in life probably couldn't accept God in death. I think beyond a certain point (don't ask me what that point is, I don't know) God will give the sinner over to the stubbornness of his own heart--a sort of spiritual "event horizon" beyond which there is no return without God's grace (can you humble yourself enough to ask God to heal a hardened heart?). I think God has the ability to "break" your heart if you ask, but for many this is a difficult thing to ask for. But I think it's possible that a person who is "fixed in thought" as you put it in such a manner as they hate God at the end of their lives will probably continue to do so throughout eternal punishment, never recognizing that it was their own sins that put them there. It's more convenient to blame God for evil than to accept sin as a result of your own doing. Make sense?

My comment on the 1st paragraph.
It seems we have only our lifetime to totally commit to a faith in God. Since there is no outward sense perception of God it must be swallowed whole for no reason I can ascertain except from some authority.
To die and perceive God as a reality would certainly be a convincer but it seems, for some unexplained reason, this is not permitted. Exactly how one builds a personal relationship with an imperceptible god is totally beyond me. One might perhaps convince one’s self that a relationship is established with an imagined god but this strikes me as entirely delusive. I certainly do not long for a relationship with a god but I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I find it intensely odd that one is considered “sinful” for placing confidence in only observed phenomena. My entire life-long experience is totally conditioned to be aware of my senses and to evaluate their contribution out of experience. I have found nothing else to match their consistence and utility. I extend my trust in authorities similarly driven for reliable configuration of my understanding.

It seems the acceptance of God is something beyond perception, it is a total submission to something overpowering and basically unknowable in its intellect and capability. This has no parallel in my experience and I can only assume it is a fantasy. Again, a direct confrontation with this being after death might be convincing but this is not permitted. This strikes me as a kind of naïve childish game where one must follow unknown rules and be indefinably rewarded by some sort of mental slavery. Not attractive in the least.
To immediately convert uncertainty of reality of a supernatural being somehow into hate has no logic at all. Of course, if the god threatens me with eternal torture for not being absolutely submissive hate does enter the equation. If one does not submit to a very nasty law I cannot see how that is the fault of the lawbreaker for desiring to be treated with decency and compassion.

The 2nd paragraph.

You're right--being a "mental robot" is NOT very attractive at all. And I don't think that's what death is like at all. I don't think God would have given us any ability to act on our own volition if He didn't intend for us to use it. At the same time, God judges us based on the motives of the heart. Do we love each other because of some self-satisfying motive? Or do we love each other because we want to show our adoration for our Creator? When I say that I love my wife, for example, it's partially because I crave her companionship. But it's more so because God gave her to me to love. God has been very good to me in my life. Therefore, I want to show her, as best I can, the same love and attention I've been given. Same thing with my children. They are gifts from God. The best way I can thank God for them is to love them and care for them just has God has cared for me. Therefore, God is first in my thoughts--not myself, not my family, not my possessions, not my neighbors, not my friends. Paradoxically, putting God first always seems to put everything else (friends, family) ahead of my own self-interests, and somehow God uses those things I'm interested in to His own glory. Now, I'm not going to lie and say that I do this perfectly. But it does seem life doesn't go nearly as well for me if my mind isn't tuned that way (tuning is important to a musician), so I do make the choice every day to seek God's will. Not because I HAVE to, but because I WANT to. And I think that building up the habit of seeking God in everything one does (by choice, I might add) is, in a sense, living in a sort of Heaven-on-Earth. I'm not concerned about the afterlife and seeking after God when that time comes; I'm already there.

My response to the 2nd paragraph

I do not consider lifetime events in the light of gifts and punishments. My wife and I lived together in one way or another over almost half a century and we relied upon our internal resources to make something of our lives. We had some very tough times together and with each other and some very good times as well. It was those inner resources that determined those relationships and they had their successes and failures. There was no god involved.

My two kids were the result of our genetic and physiological makeup and they also had their ups and downs. No god involved there either as far as I could perceive.

I do not see God at all, nor do I see flying saucers, witches, vampires or fairies. I do not see things because I want to, I see them because they make their presence known.

If I find it pleasant to have good relationships with people or animals or even the environment it becomes my self interest to do so. God is an irrelevant interposition.

I am not concerned about an afterlife because I find no reason to believe there is one.

The 3rd paragraph

I think we maintain our will in the afterlife. The only thing we DON'T get a choice about is whether we believe in God, since living in His presence will make that incontrovertible. I also think that in death, the sin-nature is taken away and we return to a very similar existence as in the Garden of Eden. Abandoning our sinful human nature, we'll be incapable of sin. I can only guess what that will be like, but I have a feeling it means all questions we ever had or could have had will be answered and our new life will make better sense than this one.

My response to paragraph 3

Your beliefs in the afterlife seem to me based purely on your desires and the nature of sin and guilt from sin seems to me to be a rather twisted neuroses. It’s the Big Rock Candy Mountain syndrome.
The 4th paragraph

The Bible encourages us, even through Jesus' own example, to be willing to lay down our lives to protect those we love, to include our countrymen and friends. The question becomes whether the aggressor is fighting a war as a means to achieve justice and to protect its citizens, or whether there is some more sinister motive. I don't think any nation in the contemporary era has faced more questioning of its motives than the United States. I'm not going to argue whether we're right or wrong here. All I can say is it seems to me that our leaders in recent years believed their actions were justified and carried out their actions with solemnity, fully understanding the consequences of those actions. The Iraqis may not be happy with a continued US presence in their country, but they are probably happier having ended the oppression of an unjust ruler.

My response to paragraph 4

To have such pure naïve faith in the scoundrels of the previous G.W.Bush administration and their open lies to get the USA involved in a military action to secure the US domination of the oil resources in the Middle East is befitting of someone totally befuddled by the transparent and idiotic nonsense of religion. All the surveys I have seen indicate that both Afghanistan and Iraq wants the meaningless butchery inflicted on them to cease as quickly as possible and the USA to get out.

The 5th paragraph

You may disagree, but I don't really think that we acted in our interests alone. In a state of war, by the nature of war, you have opposing sides trying to defend each others' positions. There are two options: surrender, and death. The question a soldier must ask is whether what he is fighting for is worth dying for. And by furthering his cause, he must accept that he will have to defend himself. The Bible teaches "turn the other cheek." But "turning the other cheek" applied to war is about choosing your battles. We see that very often Jesus did NOT turn the other cheek but faced his attackers (in an idealogical sense). A soldier has the right and duty to defend the interests of those who sent him as well as to protect himself. When the situation is "kill or be killed," the soldier staring down the barrel of an enemy's gun really only has one choice: To be the first to shoot. Believing he has done the right thing at the time, all a soldier can do, then, is pray for the soul of the slain, pray that God give him the wisdom and fortitude to perform his duties free of guilt, and to forgive him if he's acted wrongly.

My response to paragraph 5

Your statements conform so precisely to the Nazi defense of “following orders” that if this is Christianity it fails abjectly. Of course, if each individual soldier evaluated his guilt for rampant murder permitted in war military organizations would be in total disarray and perhaps that is why the message of Christianity is most neglected by soldiers.

The 6th paragraph

Killing on the battlefield does not qualify as murder. It is murder, the senseless and premeditated end of life for no just cause, that is forbidden. What we call "manslaughter" and "self-defense" are justified in the Bible, and remedies are given for each. "Manslaughter" is unintentional, but must be paid for in some way--but not with another life. "Self-defense" places the blame on the attacker, not the defender. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't avoid causing harm to others. It shouldn't encourage a "shoot first and ask questions later" or "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" mentality (as in the case of war). It just means that, in the case of an accident, that all has been done to prevent injury. It also means that, in the case of self-defense, that no other better option presented itself or all better options failed. Contemporary warfare in the Western world is oriented more towards targeted killing of those willing and capable of doing harm. Killing is unavoidable, but we do try to reach an understanding with our enemies to show that our reasons are (hopefully) just and our goals are to help, not to harm.

My response to paragraph 6

Every war that has been fought has been declared as self defense by the aggressor. The fact is religion that forbids killing cannot face up to the basic facts that the overwhelming bulk of military actions are indefensible and most of them are senseless murder. That is the basic fact and not even God knows what to do about it. If you know even the most elementary facts of history the West is as guilty as anybody else with rampant brutality and no man but an idiot or someone insane would forgive you for murdering him.

The 7th paragraph

I can't go on about war without making it a political discussion. From what I've read in the Bible, a just war is Biblically supported. What the Bible does NOT seem to support is a religious war. "Spiritual warfare" seems to indicate the conflict between believers and the temptations of the unbelieving world. We ought to testify to those things we've witnessed ourselves, persuasively act to convince others to believe as we do by teaching them, and provide support for new converts. Forced conversion, I think we'd all agree, is wrong. The Bible puts no prohibition whatsoever on compassion.

My response to paragraph 7

I doubt even the wisdom of a supernatural power could sort out the various current and historical wars to determine justification since all wars have ideological and economic and political factors that are not simply judged. And religion probably plays a part in all of them as well.

The 8th paragraph

To be more direct, someone who is "following orders" is hardly condemnable. A believer who "follows orders" can only pray that God will give him the wisdom to discern between doing what is right and doing what is wrong. You have a choice, for instance, to support your country in which you live by going to war (if eligible for military service, of course), or to leave your country to seek haven elsewhere. A number of US citizens refused to go to Vietnam, and I think it was in large part due to public opinion that US involvement in Vietnam ceased. A better prayer, one I've prayed often, is that if my actions are not within God's will that God not allow me to succeed. Further, a believer is already justified through faith. Therefore, a believer need not have fear of the afterlife after a life in which the certainty of his actions are questionable. If a person feels he has done wrong in a time when he felt he had no other choice, as when following orders, all he need do is ask God's forgiveness if he feels led to do so.

My response to paragraph 8

You must excuse me but your predilection here for total baloney seems to have overcome totally whatever good sense you may have.

The 9th paragraph

Finally, faith in God SHOULD grant the believer a large degree of certainty. Sure, I have questions and doubts. We all do. But the questions and doubts are beyond the realm of what's REALLY important: The relationship of our souls to our Maker. It is also true that God does not call each of us to a common goal or course of action. As of this time, I do not see myself becoming a preacher--though the thought has crossed my mind from time to time, I'm just not the right person for the job. I NEVER imagined with my lack of ability that I'd become an instrumentalist in the size church I attend with the musical professionalism it possesses. Yet here I am, and my post carries with it a certain amount of worship leadership that the average choir member will never attain. My prayer in throwing my name in the hat was that if God had someone better in mind (and there WERE better qualified people) for the job that He not give me that position. God didn't stop me, and I've seem some wonderful changes in how we worship as a congregation during this time. Even more convincing for me is that I've witnessed these changes from the best seat in the house, the piano bench!

My response to paragraph 9

You willingness to abdicate free will in deference to God’s intents seems at odds with your other beliefs.

The 10th paragraph

One might argue confirmation bias, of course. I can understand why. But the ways in which I've profoundly experienced God's presence in my life personally leave little room for doubt. I lack doubt because the questions that are REALLY important have already been answered. Anything else is, of course, open for debate. I'm sorry if it appears shallow. Insofar as Biblically-based doctrine/practice and diligent prayer provides answers, I can say that there is no reason to doubt. It's all a mystery, I think. The only way I can explain the mystery is that there are no words to explain it. It can only be revealed to you through your own personal experience, and the experience for me has been much more profound, much deeper I think than any depth of human contemplation.

My response to paragraph 10

So it all boils down to that mysterious “gut feeling”. Undoubtedly there is a nervous complex in the abdominal sector but most of my contemplation originates elsewhere. I suppose you might think of yourself as the Abdominal Christian.

Well, Sand, I have no need to fear attacks from anyone. And I also don't feel the need to go off on some rampage just because we don't view things the same way. I think we're both entitled to our own opinions.

I understand that you hold religious ideas to a certain standard in order for them to be acceptable. I do the same thing, I just approach it from a different angle--that of acceptance of certain things, certain pre-conditions, while your approach is outright denial and rejection. It's not my right or purpose to make up your mind for you, and I think your beliefs and attitudes are more shaped by actual experience than perhaps anyone else here. But I HAVE backed you into a corner before, and your sudden and hasty retreat does display your own awareness of certain holes or gaps within your own thinking, perception, and philosophy. It does neither of us any good to pursue those avenues if you yourself aren't prepared to acknowledge that. You seem like a genuinely good person despite how your commentary is often misperceived, and it is out of respect that I choose not to force the issue. If you ask questions, I'll answer them.

In your comments, the most striking response was that to paragraph 9. The short answer is I do believe God grants us the ability to make our own decisions and to act on our own volition. One of those decisions is that to consciously, deliberately, knowingly, willingly, and gladly subjugate our own will to that of God. The thing that has impacted my life the most is having "freedom from" over "freedom to." God wants me to be a good person to my family, the few friends I have, to those who live around me, and so on. So I live my life doing my very best to be respectful and helpful, at least as much as I can in my own limited way. The problem of being "all things to all people" or "trying to please everyone" is that it is an impossible task WITHOUT someone at some point in some way getting hurt. There are any number of dilemmas and Catch 22 traps one can fall into, and very often few possible outcomes present themselves that don't involve some measure of compromise. All I have to offer is my imperfect best in my own imperfect way. If my life is in God's hands, then I bear no responsibility for my shortcomings, and all I CAN do in my own feeble way is trust that God's will, one way or another, with me or without me, is done. The way I see it, that doesn't interfere with human free will at all. I WAS free to follow Christ when I was younger, and now I'm COMPELLED to do so because I decided I wanted to. I don't believe that I'm free to take it back, and I wouldn't want to even if I could. A person is free to their own will unless they make the decision to give it up.

Does that mean that I'm NOT a willful person? No. I CAN be stubborn. I'm capable of falling away from what seems to be what God wants. I'm guilty of being hurtful and even arrogant at times. That's the folly of being an imperfect human being, and I think maybe you've been the unfortunate one to catch the ugliest side of me. But I know that God loves me and has already forgiven me for my failures. And despite that, there is great liberty to be found in being able to confess those failures and start anew. There is profound peace to be discovered through endurance within faith.

Tell ya what: You said yourself you aren't "deeply informed on all of the literature of religion." I get the impression that what you are acquainted with, the "broad general concepts," are those things that other people have had to say about the Bible, Christ's teachings, and what the Church--oops, I meant "God"--wants. There is a HUGE difference in what some people, even Christians themselves, have to say about it and what it actually IS. I think of myself less a "Christian" in contemporary terms and more of someone who loves God and seeks to learn more about God and Christ, the difference being a label to describe followers of a religion versus someone who really wants Biblical truth. I would challenge you to do this: Read through the four Gospels and only pay attention to what Christ actually SAID. Don't worry about immaculate conception, death on the cross, resurrection--just what Christ Himself taught. What, if anything at all, does Christ actually say about waging war in His name? What does Christ have to say about the proper way to treat other human beings? What does Christ reveal about Himself?

The main question is this: How do the words of Christ relate to the world today? Are people following His teachings? If not, then how should the world be different if people did? What is so harmful about Christ? In following Christ's teachings, are we better off or worse?

Even better: Do Christians themselves exemplify the teachings of Jesus? Any thoughts on why/why not?

I think much of the "blame" that God gets is due from a poor perception of what Christians are such that the actual person and teachings of Jesus have become obscured. I've long been guilty of sitting in a pew and absorbing and accepting whatever has been said. Actually digging into the text has been eye-opening for me.

Hi there,

From memory of my Theology studies a long time ago, taking ones own life is a sin against God(Catholic teachings) "as He giveth, He also taketh away". In other words, Gods word is law and no-one can make a decision to end his or her own life. It is
up to God to make the decision about when our lives end. Catholic doctrine stated, back when I was studying it, that a person who took their own life could not be buried on consecrated ground and could not be buried with the same burial rites as other forms of death. I don't think much has changed, but maybe they are more lenient these days. Not sure.

However, if a person was to repent and asked God for forgiveness and went to confession before the act of ending their own lives, by Catholic law they would be absolved of their sins therefore achieving salvation.

Hope that helps,

Mics

What is fascinating to me about you is your linguistic articulation. It is quite good and that is a side indication that your thinking processes are functioning well. That it is deceptive in that your total subjugation to the fantasy of an unsubstantiated supernatural being addicted to the beneficent welfare of humanity disturbs me because even the most superficial knowledge of current understanding of the structure and nature of the universe reveals that Earth itself, not to speak of the existence of humanity and even life, are trivial phenomena in the almost incomprehensible vastness of the universe.

Good and evil are theological inventions in the formulation of theological legalisms for the manipulation of society. They are not absolutes and almost always their determination varies when applied to different individuals and different societies. That they should be applied to rather trivial social actions such as sexuality and even choice of food and clothing clearly reveals how insubstantial and ludicrous they can be.

That you surrender what you call free choice to total personal subjugation to your assumed existence of an imperceptible superbeing strikes me as being totally irrational and a true tragedy in a mind that seems otherwise to be functioning reasonably well.

The details of the writings of Christ's existence and proclamations are at best doubtful and seem to be interpreted and reinterpreted and misinterpreted over so many centuries and translations that I seriously doubt my readings of this odd collection would clarify much. He was, after all, a Jewish religious advocate of many centuries and very different social conditions ago and life has moved on to a very different comprehension of realities. A superficial look at current Arab culture which has remained relatively primitive and static compared to accepted western norms makes a reasonable perception as to evaluate social feelings now and in Christ's time. I do not see much point in holding to those archaic standards.

In general your long statement to which I attempted to reply indicates an adherence to a social code which you find you can comfortably flex to comply to modern social standards such as killing in wartime which strikes me as outright hypocrisy and I find in this a character fault which is most disturbing. If anything, your inconsistency belies your adherence to what you consider decency and moral courage.

suicide being an unforgivable sin is not found in the bible. If it is true that Jesus allowed himself to be crucified...would that mean that he indirrectly commited suicide. Not that I recomend suicide though...its toll on surviving loved ones is far too great.

You mean that commandment "Thou shalt not kill except thyself"?

it does not say that it is an UNFORGIVABLE sin...I never said that the bible did not say it was a sin

And when did God confer upon you the information as to what is or is not forgivable?

I believe jojobean's response is well intended, but perhaps not well informed.

AG and I had an exchange not long ago about the simplicity of the Biblical message. I pointed out that the bare basic point of the Bible begins with the need for atonement and ends with the provision of said atonement on our behalf by Jesus. Anyone who accepts Jesus' atonement on our behalf is forgiven of sin, after which there need be no further concern over the bondage of sin in our lives, but rather living a life according to His example and in repentance. Jesus said it best after He performed miraculous healing: "Go and sin no more."

Where AG's contention is correct that the message is much more complicated than that is with these types of discussions, and all we have to go on are the words of the Law, the prophets, the writings, and the words of Jesus with subsequent application by later writers. Our work shifts from being mere believers to critical thinkers, and we must ascertain what God's intentions for us are based on the principles already laid out for us in the text.

Suicide is one of those matters. I've been quite thorough, or at least as thorough as I'm humanly capable of, in my reading and interpretation of the Law. There is NO mention whatsoever of suicide in relation to God's plan. There are reports of people who committed suicide, but those accounts are very dry and objective--simple newspaper-style reporting in which the act itself is not condemned. One possible interpretation, which I believe is incorrect, is that suicide is acceptable as it is not dealt with as being sin. One can make a similar case today for recreational drug abuse, as it is strictly alcohol that the Bible only puts mild restriction on it's use. With that kind of logic, one might reasonably assume that suicide cannot be counted among sin.

What DOES make suicide a sin, however, are other statements regarding the sanctity of human life. God spared Adam and Eve, for example, because they were repentant, even though they knew they had done wrong and that the wrong they had done was punishable by death. God spared Cain's life, even after committing the first Biblically recorded act of murder. Logically speaking, this shows that God values human life over retribution and is willing to spare a person's life in order to end bloodshed. Under God's direction, the Israelites are strictly prohibited from committing murder, the only acceptable repayment for which is the murderer's life. In fact, any time death is mentioned as a legal and/or spiritual remedy for evil intentions, some sort of sacrifice is required. This suggests that the executioner of a murderer is also at fault. In absolving the one who sheds the blood of a murderer, the Law is written in such a way to say "his blood is on his own head," meaning no one but himself is to blame--therefore no further penalty need be paid. The same is written about other crimes punishable by death, including certain types of adultery and idolatrous practices (practices not NECESSARILY done in the context of worshiping false gods but known to be associated with such acts of worship). In order that a sinner might live, an animal blood sacrifice is required in the place of the sinner. I read this to mean that the innocent animal is a reminder that it was the guilty person who SHOULD have been in the place of death, but rather God has provided a means to which mercy may be found and granted if the sinner confesses sin and repents from it.

Further, the Bible reveals that God made man in His image. While some may worship visible gods represented by objects of wood, metal, and stone, the Israelites were called to worship an invisible God. As I've pointed out before, to destroy a human life is to destroy an earthly representation of man's Creator, "killing God." If you want to find God in this world, simply look at the nearest person to you. If you want to love God, treat those around you with the kindness and respect you'd want for yourself. Destroying human life means destruction of the image of God and its inherent value as such, not to mention the simple cruelty of depriving a person of life and all its potential. One of the difficulties of war is the necessity (to a degree) of killing, and I'm sure most of us will agree that peace is always preferable if not always possible. The regrettable fact of human existence is that humans are all too willing to be aggressors, and actions designed to preserve life for some will inevitably result in death for their attackers. Unless there is complete and total agreement among humans, there will never be an end to war. There is a wide gulf between killing in war and premeditated murder. Killing that is directed by God Himself, likewise, is part of God's judgment and the fault, if there should be blame to be found, is on God Himself. By examining the scripture, most of God's unfinished business in the days of the judges was ended during the reign of King David. David was forbidden to begin building the temple because God felt there was "too much blood on his hands," so the task was reserved for the peaceful time of Solomon's reign. Any subsequent military campaigns were either directed at internal conflicts or securing the nation's borders and protecting the Israelites from outside attack.

Now, what does that have to do with suicide? The Bible shows us that at all times life itself belongs to God and is to be regarded as sacred. At all costs it is to be protected and its destruction by all but natural forces is to be avoided. Certain facts of human nature make this impossible, but it is an ideal that one should always work towards. Suicide, therefore, is also like murder in that it is the willful and deliberate destruction of one's own sacred life. Therefore, it HAS to be counted among destructive, sinful actions.

The next issue is whether suicide is damnable to the extent of eternal separation from God and the consequence of Hell. One must refer to the New Testament. Just as I do not recall any mention of suicide SPECIFICALLY in the Old Testament, I do not recall any mention of it in the NT (although, admittedly, I haven't yet studied the NT quite that thoroughly). If I'm mistaken about statements regarding suicide as being listed a sin in either collection, NT or OT, please call my attention to it. But since it is not listed as a sin, there is likewise no mention of eternal ramifications for it. Therefore we have to look at what IS known about the penalties for sin.

First, we know we are absolved of any and all sin in this life through faith in Christ. There is, therefore, no sin that the believer can possibly commit that is unforgivable. As a matter of fact, the ONLY sin that any unbeliever may commit that IS unforgivable is denying the Holy Spirit. The context of that statement indicates application to a person who witnesses acts of the Holy Spirit in such a way that those acts are not justifiably deniable. The Apostle Paul, for instance, had such an experience. In modern terms, one might attribute such a revelation to a mini-stroke, the effects of heat on the brain, tainted food, eating the wrong kinds of mushrooms, and so forth. No doubt someone of Paul's day would have been aware of such things. If Paul had tried to explain something that only had one explanation as something which it was not, then Paul would have been guilty of "blaspheming the Holy Spirit." Paul recognized what it was he experienced for what it was, and it changed his life.

So, logically speaking, if we know what the only named unforgivable sin IS, then we also know what sins are NOT unforgivable. Suicide is NOT listed as such a sin. Therefore, it CAN be forgiven.

Which leads to the next issue about forgiveness and suicide. If one has faith, then one is forgiven already. If one does NOT have faith, then one is unforgiven. Suicide for the unforgiven cannot be absolved because the one who commits suicide ends the time he has in which to confess his sins, accept Jesus' atonement sacrifice, and live a life of repentance and spiritual growth. The question now becomes the state of the suicide's soul.

How do we know? The Bible tells us "you will know them by their deeds." There are two alternatives here.

As I've mentioned before, even believers are prone to lapses in faith. But a lapse in faith does not indicate an absence of faith. Thus the faithful are incapable of any "fall from grace." Such things as those, feelings of despair and hopelessness resulting from real or imagined circumstances, chemical imbalances within the brain (chronic clinical depression, other psychosis), delusional states of mind resulting from drug use, paranoia, etc., MIGHT be seen as external conditions beyond the fault of the believer. The blame for such an act might rather be on friends, family, other believers for failing to intervene on the suicide's behalf. They have a chance even though they feel their runaway life is beyond their control. There is no mercy in condemning such a person to Hell.

The other perspective has to do with whether a person of faith is even capable of such an act. Someone who believes and respects the sanctity of all human life, including his own, may be tempted by suicide yet strong enough in faith to resist it. The faithful person knows there is more to gain in earthly life by not choosing to end it prematurely. Thus, the suicide goes through with his own destruction because his faith was never genuine to begin with, simply because God would not allow such a thing to happen to His own. He recited all the words, prayed all the prayers, but did not completely surrender to faith. Suicide represents the hole in his faith from never truly genuinely accepting salvation from Christ. Because he never accepted Christ to begin with, because he never allowed the Holy Spirit to rule over his life, he is given over to life's circumstances and his own backwards mind and heart. Suicide represents the final refusal of Christ's gift of atonement, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and a slap in God's face by destroying God's image. The suicide attempt, if successful, is a one-way path away from opportunity to change one's heart and mind to a place where there is no mercy to be found.

Because we "know them by their deeds," it is difficult to know with any degree of certainty if one who commits suicide is truly a believer. They may have made a prior statement of faith and lived their lives out to the end that they appear to keep Jesus' commandments. For that person, committing suicide is the unthinkable and comes as a shock to those who know that person well. Believers are not without fault, so really any believer can reasonably fall victim to circumstances resulting in suicide. But no matter how good a person is, suicide seems to contradict any good acts that person did in the name of the Holy Spirit. It is possible that such a person was never a believer in the first place and no place will be found in the kingdom of Heaven for him.

Simple solution: Don't kill yourself, and don't judge those who do.

The Bible is quite explicit on that point, actually. The only sin that cannot be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Since you are better informed in the area I appreciate the information. But what constitutes blasphemy? Since many common English expletives contain some sort of religious references does that fall within the area of blasphemy? If so, Hell must be very well populated.

I am NOT a theologian, but I have always understood that to be a very extreme type of rebellion of the spirit. One might express it as being an outright hatred or revulsion towards that which is good. Just shooting your mouth off because you had a bad day is one thing, but outright rejecting the Spirit completely from oneself is an entirely different thing.

One thing I believe Christians must remember is great humility when it comes to claiming to know who is and is not in or going to Hell. While we have statements like this to give us an idea, in the end it comes down to what happens between that individual and God, and we cannot claim to know what's happening where our perception does not go. Even for me to claim that God has given up on someone who flatly denies Him is not something I am willing to say because I simply do not know. Remembering our place, in this manner, is something that I think would avoid a lot of very un-Christian maltreatment and contempt and arrogance towards others, because those are not at all the attitude we are called to have. It's one thing to say that you think a person's behavior is wrong...it's another to say you think that person's going to Hell. That second I think is beyond what we dare speak towards each other.

That last paragraph is dead on. I think too many of us are too eager to send people to Hell before their time. When you consider the fate of someone else (other than yourself) and the fate of their soul, ONLY God can truly know, and the destiny of the soul is a personal thing between each individual human being and God. If YOU are saved and you know you're saved, then you know you are already free from Hell. Christians are called to compassion for others, including those who do not believe, and this point cannot be stressed enough.

Sand, I believe your response was to Orwell, so forgive me for jumping in:

Blasphemy on its own refers to anything said that is untrue. In the OT, blasphemy within the Israelite community (I think) was punishable by death. The attitude among the early Exodus-period Israelites was that the actions of a single person affected the entire community. Penalties for blasphemy, misusing God's name (YHWH, or Yahweh), idol worship, and so on were typically severe. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, for example, for some of the claims He made. That was used in part to build a case against Him to put Him to death.

Jesus' teachings were more about God's mercy rather than God's vengeance. Jesus said that any sin could be forgiven. Not believing God, or speaking out against God/speaking untruth about God is forgivable, since a change of heart may show the blasphemer that he was in error. The same argument can be made for Jesus.

When the Bible mentions the only unforgivable sin, the context is that Jesus was directing His comments towards a small number of Pharisees. Jesus had cast out a demon from a man who was blind and mute. The Pharisees accused Jesus of exorcism in the name of the "Lord of the Flies" (Baalzebub). Jesus' warning was that blasphemy against Him could be forgiven; indeed, any sin could be forgiven. But telling lies about the actions of the Holy Spirit, by which power Jesus cast out demonic spirits, would never be forgiven. To qualify as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the blasphemer has to have witnessed activity of the Spirit in such a way that the truth and reality of the act is incontrovertible; that is, undeniable as being anything other than what it is. This manifests as a complete and total refusal to acknowledge the Holy Spirit. It's like a person who is in full possession of his senses looking at the sky on a clear, normal, sunny day and adamantly denying that the sky is blue, doing so to the extent they refuse to see any absurdity in their argument.

A person who blasphemes the Holy Spirit is not concerned at all whether they do something like this or not. If it worries you, for example, that you've done so, it's a clear indication that you haven't. Someone who has genuinely placed their faith in Christ is incapable of such an act.

Incidentally, the dictionary definition of blasphemy is "the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things." It derives from a Greek word that has a similar meaning to "slander." My reading of the "unforgivable sin" can extend the word "blasphemy" to mean "slander" or "denial."

Then, since I do not believe in a god, I cannot blaspheme. It somehow has a funny negative context in the light of your comment on the blue sky. When someone looks at the universe and sees only non-sentient forces at work and then claims there is a god, that must be a form of blasphemy.

The commandment is "you shall not murder". Murder is wrongful deliberate homicide. Killing in self defense is permitted under Jewish law as is killing an attacker who is about to injure or kill another. If A is pursuing B brandishing a knife (say) then one is allowed to used force against A to make him/her stop even if it is deadly force. Killing as part of a just war is also permitted.

ruveyn